mintz levin qui tam update

Earlier this month, Mintz Levin’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Group published its most recent Health Care Qui Tam Update that looks at 18 health care-related qui tam cases unsealed in October and November of 2016.

The Update presents two unique cases in-depth and covers some of the trends revealed in these recently unsealed cases:

  • The cases identified were filed in federal district courts in 12 states, including California (5), New York (3), Alabama (1), Arkansas (1), Florida (1), Hawaii (1), Kansas (1), New Jersey (1), New Mexico (1), North Carolina (1), Oklahoma (1), and Pennsylvania (1).
  • The federal government declined to intervene in nine of the 18 cases. Five more cases were voluntarily dismissed before any action was taken by the government. The federal government intervened, in whole or in part, in three cases. In the two remaining cases, the government’s intervention status could not be discerned from the unsealed filings.
  • Nature of the Claims
    • Nine of the recently unsealed cases included both state and federal claims.
    • Four involved allegations of unlawful kickbacks. Of these, two also alleged violations of the Stark Law (42 U.S.C. § 1395nn).
    • Claims for relief under state or federal anti-whistleblower retaliation provisions appeared in nine of the 18 recently unsealed cases.
    • The cases remained under seal for an average of just over two years (774 days). The median number of days cases remained under seal was 573.5. United States ex rel. DiBenedetto v. Vahedi, which was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, was under seal for the shortest amount of time, at 104 days. United States ex rel. Harmsen v. Moore County Dental Care Center, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, was under seal the longest, at 2,075 days (over five and a half years)
  • In nearly three-quarters of the unsealed cases (13 of 18), relators were current or former employees of the defendant.

See HERE for the full Update and to find our key takeaways from the cases discussed.

 

Yesterday, Mintz Levin’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Group published its most recent Health Care Qui Tam Update.  This Update covers 42 health care-related False Claims Act qui tam cases that have been unsealed since the last Health Care Qui Tam Update.

Highlights of this Update include:

  • A substantial majority of the unsealed cases have been under seal for periods well in excess of the required statutory period, demonstrating that extension of the seal in qui tam actions continues to be routine.
    • Of the 44 complaints filed in these 42 cases, 75% were filed before 2015, with one unsealed complaint dating back to November 2008 and two others dating back to 2010 and 2011, respectively.
    • Of the remaining complaints, five were filed in 2012, fourteen in 2013, eleven in 2014 and eleven in 2015.
  •  The cases identified were filed in federal district courts in 15 states and the District of Columbia.
  • The federal government declined to intervene in 25 of the 42 cases.

To read the entire Update, click here.

Mintz Levin’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Group has published the latest edition of its Qui Tam Update. The October Qui Tam Update reviews 15 health-related False Claims Act cases that were recently unsealed. Over half of the cases involved both state and federal claims, and over 85% of the relators in the cases were current or former employees. Additionally, the government affirmatively declined to intervene in about half of the cases. In this issue, two noteworthy cases are highlighted:

  • Miller v. Neuropsychiatric Institute, LLC, No. 8:14-cv-1110 (M.D. Fla.), involving a novel expansion of False Claims Act liability. Beyond false claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid, the relator alleged false claims were made that amounted to immigration fraud and Social Security benefits fraud.
  • United States ex. rel. Yvette Odumosu v. Pediatric Services of America Healthcare, No. 1:11-cv-1007 (N.D. Ga.) (“Odumosu”) and United States ex. rel. Sheila McCray v. Pediatric Services of America, Inc., No. CV413-127 (S.D. Ga.) (“McCray”), which resulted in the first ever False Claims Act settlement involving an alleged failure to adequately investigate credit balances and determine whether those balances resulted from overpayments from federal health care programs.

Read the full Qui Tam Update for more information about the trends we’ve observed in all of the recently unsealed cases. In our Qui Tam Update series, we monitor recently unsealed FCA cases, identify trends in health care enforcement, and discuss noteworthy cases and developments. To receive the Qui Tam Update by email, subscribe here.

Mintz Levin’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Practice has published its most recent Qui Tam Update, analyzing overall trends in 36 recently unsealed health care related whistleblower cases.

In this issue, the team highlights a case that was filed back in 2006, with allegations that focus on a hospital’s failure to maintain a culture of compliance.

  • United States Of America ex rel. Dan Bisk, State Of New York ex rel. Dan Bisk v. Westchester Medical Center, 1:06cv15296 (S.D.N.Y) – the defendant’s former compliance officer alleged a variety of FCA and Stark Law violations involving the New York hospital, and claimed the defendant retaliated against him; the government focused its investigation on a particular physician practice group.

The team also reviews a trio of cases against the same defendant, alleging dermatology sweetheart deals.

  • United States ex rel. Ross v. Family Dermatology of Penn., P.C., No. 1:11-cv-2413 (N.D. Ga.); United States ex rel. Baucom v. Family Dermatology of Penn., P.C., No. 1:11-cv-4260 (N.D. Ga.); and United States ex rel. Milstein v. Family Dermatology, P.C., 1:13-cv-01027 (N.D. Ga.) – the relators had different levels of involvement with the defendants, but each is a physician who alleged that the multi-state dermatology practice, and its husband and wife owners, would buy dermatology practices, then enter into independent contractor agreements with the remaining physicians, and require them to refer their pathology specimens to a lab owned by the defendants, in violation of FCA, Stark Law and AKS.

Read the full Qui Tam Update for more information about these cases, and the trends we’ve observed in all of the recently unsealed cases. In our Qui Tam Update series, we monitor recently unsealed FCA cases, identify trends in health care enforcement, and discuss noteworthy cases and developments. To receive the Qui Tam Update by email, subscribe here.